Sandra Catron Applicant v (1) The Queen (2) Louis M. Ebanks, JP (3) The Commissioner of Police Respondents

JurisdictionCayman Islands
JudgeHon. Justice Henderson
Judgment Date21 May 2013
Judgment citation (vLex)[2013] CIGC J0521-1
Docket NumberCause No. 361 of 2012
CourtGrand Court (Cayman Islands)
Date21 May 2013

In the Matter of an Application for Leave to Apply for Juicial Review Pursuant to Gcr O.53 R.3

Between:
Sandra Catron
Applicant
and
(1) The Queen
(2) Louis M. Ebanks, JP
(3) The Commissioner of Police
Respondents
[2013] CIGC J0521-1
Before:

Hon. Justice Henderson

Cause No. 361 of 2012
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
Appearances:

Ms. Sandra Catron, the Applicant, In Person

Ms. Suzanne Bothwell of the Attorney General's Chambers for the Commissioner of Police, the Defendant

RULING
1

Acting under the authority of a search warrant, Police Officers searched the home, office and vehicle of the applicant, Sandra Catron (‘Ms. Catron’) on July 27, 2012. On this judicial review application Ms. Catron challenges the lawfulness of the decision to issue the search warrant and requests the return of the items seized; damages, including aggravated damages, for trespass to land and goods; and damages for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. Ms. Catron, who represented herself throughout the proceeding, has also made a number of complaints about the manner in which the warrant was executed and the way in which she was dealt with after the search had been completed. As I indicated during the hearing, these latter complaints are outside the purview of a judicial review application.

2

The decision under review is the decision of Mr. Louis Ebanks, Justice of the Peace, to issue the search warrant on July 27, 2012. The warrant was issued on the basis of an Information and Complaint in the following form:

‘The information and complaint of Senior Detective Constable Neblett— of the RCIPS in the Islands of Grand Cayman [sic], made on oath before me, LOUIS M. EBANKS one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the Cayman Islands this 27 th day of JULY., in the year of our Lord two thousand and TWELVE who saith that the following goods [sic] to wit:-

Cellphones, laptops and other documents or any document or device suspected to be associated with the commission of this offence and any vehicle owned, rented, leased, reduced [sic] in the control of Sandra Catron or any vehicle to which she has access

has been used in connection with the offence of Misuse of ICT and has by some person or persons unknown within 2 months last past been illegally used in the Cayman Islands, and that he hath probable cause to suspect and doth suspect and believe that the said items or any document or device suspected to be associated with the commission of this offence is concealed on the premises of Sandra Catron situated at 125–2 Rackley Blvd, Newlands, Grand Cayman

and therefore he the said [left blank] Prayeth that Justice

may be done.

Officer's Signature: ‘A. Neblett SDC 101’

Sworn to before me

this 27 day of, July 2012

‘L. M. Ebanks’ Louis M. Ebanks

Justice of the Peace Justice of the Peace

Cayman Islands

The warrant itself is in this form:

Magistrates Court [sic]

Cayman Islands

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. (LAW 14 OF 1975) (2005 REVISION) SCHEDULE II (SECTION 26)

To SDC Neblett and other officers of the RCIPS

WHEREAS I/the Court am/is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offence of Misuse of ICT and it has been made to appear to me that the production of the following articles (s) are essential to the enquiry into the said offence of: Misuse of ICT

Cellphones, Laptop and Documents suspected to be associated with the commission of this offence, as also, any vehicle owned, rented, leased, reduced [sic] into the control of Sandra Catron, or any vehicle to which she has access to [sic].

THIS IS TO AUTHORISE and require you to enter upon and search the premises of Sandra Catron situated at 125–2 Rackley Blvd, Newlands

and if discovered to take possession of the said article(s) and produce the same forthwith before a Court; returning this warrant with an endorsement certifying the manner of its execution.

Given under my hand (and the seal of the Court) [sic] this 27 day of July 2012

‘L. M. Ebanks’

MAGISTRATE/JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Louis M. Ebanks

Justice of the Peace

Cayman Islands

3

The Justice of the Peace has sworn an admirably frank affidavit in which he says:

  • 3. On the morning of July 27 th 2012 Officer Neblett of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service came to me at #78 Thomas Russell Avenue to my place of business known as L&T Tyre Shop.

  • 4. He provided me with a search warrant and asked for my signature which I provided. The warrant was already typed up in full and I merely provided my signature/stamp.

  • 5. Officer Neblett did not provide any details whatsoever regarding the warrant; which is a customary practice.

  • 6. Since that time I have not received any endorsement or details of if/when the warrant was executed.

  • 7. On August 22 nd 2012 Ms. Sandra Catron contacted me via telephone and inquired what evidence I would have been provided in order to sign the search warrant. I replied ‘absolutely none’ and further indicated to her that the police never provide me with any evidence when having a warrant signed.

4

The Officer who signed the search warrant, Detective Constable Adrian Neblett, has sworn an affidavit in which he provides his recollection of the application for the warrant. He says that he provided a verbal ‘explanation’ for the ‘reason for the warrant’ to Mr. Ebanks, who ‘gave me the impression that he was listening to what I was telling him and that he understood the basis upon which I was seeking the warrant.’ He observes that Mr. Ebanks pointed out a typographical error in the Information and Complaint and corrected it. Detective Constable Neblett asserts that the proceedings ‘were not out of the ordinary’; in essence, he was following what he considered to be the customary practice.

Applicable Law
5

The requirements are set out in sections 26 and 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code (2011 Revision) in these terms:

‘26. Where a court of a Justice of the Peace is satisfied by information on oath that in fact or according to reasonable suspicion anything upon, by or in respect of which an offence has been committed or anything which is necessary to the conduct of an investigation into any offence is in any building,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT